N=1 After 40

Completed experiment · August 2026

SLU-PP-332

The first two administrations raised my heart rate by about 10% at the same perceived cardio effort. The response disappeared, and the remaining ten administrations produced no repeatable training benefit I could detect. Personal experiment record, not medical advice, prescribing, sourcing guidance, or an instruction to copy.

Outcome: Twelve 500 mcg subcutaneous administrations between August 6 and August 19, totaling 6 mg, produced a brief early heart-rate response but no sustained cardio or lifting signal. Filed as no signal and removed from the active stack.

Research Summary

What it is

SLU-PP-332 is a synthetic small molecule, not a peptide. It activates all three estrogen-related receptor subtypes—ERRα, ERRβ, and ERRγ—with its highest potency at ERRα. These orphan nuclear receptors help regulate mitochondrial energy metabolism, fatty-acid oxidation, and the skeletal-muscle response to aerobic exercise.

Why it is called an exercise mimetic

In cultured skeletal-muscle cells, SLU-PP-332 increased cellular respiration and mitochondrial function. In mice, it activated an ERRα-dependent gene program associated with acute aerobic exercise and increased type IIa oxidative muscle fibers. The label refers to parts of that molecular and muscular adaptation program; it does not mean the compound reproduces every effect of training.

The mouse endurance result

The foundational performance study treated sedentary mice with 50 mg/kg by intraperitoneal injection twice daily for seven days. In its treadmill exhaustion test, treated mice ran about 70% longer and 45% farther than vehicle-treated mice. A two-week experiment also reported increased grip strength. Genetic experiments supported ERRα as necessary for the endurance response.

The mouse metabolic result

A follow-up study in diet-induced-obese and genetically obese mice reported higher energy expenditure and fatty-acid oxidation, reduced fat-mass accumulation, and improved insulin sensitivity. Those findings explain the interest in SLU-PP-332 for both endurance and body composition, but they remain animal outcomes.

The human evidence boundary

The published performance and metabolic experiments used mice. A later pilot study used muscle biopsies from older adults, but SLU-PP-332 was applied to isolated primary muscle cells in culture; the participants were not dosed with the compound. That work adds human-cell biology, not a human performance, pharmacokinetic, dose, or safety result.

Route and dose do not translate directly

The core mouse experiments used intraperitoneal doses measured in tens of milligrams per kilogram. My run used a fixed 500 mcg subcutaneous dose. The research does not establish how that human route and exposure compare with the mouse experiments or whether they produced meaningful ERR target engagement. A later paper developed the related compound SLU-PP-915 specifically because SLU-PP-332 lacks oral bioavailability, underscoring its status as an early research tool rather than a clinically characterized drug.

Why a higher heart rate was not a performance result

A heart-rate increase at unchanged perceived effort is an acute physiological response, but it does not demonstrate greater speed, power, endurance, or efficiency. The cited studies do not establish heart-rate elevation as a marker of ERR engagement. For this experiment, the signal mattered only if it led to a repeatable improvement in training, which it did not.

Sources

The Experiment

Question

At 500 mcg by subcutaneous injection, would SLU-PP-332 produce a repeatable improvement in endurance, training capacity, recovery, or body composition?

Protocol

I completed twelve 500 mcg subcutaneous administrations on twelve days between August 6 and August 19, 2026. There were no recorded doses on August 7 or August 16. Total exposure was 6 mg, and all administrations used the same dose. These are historical details of what I did, not a suggested protocol.

The first two administrations

On August 6 and August 8, my heart rate during cardio was about 10% higher at the same perceived effort. That was the clearest acute observation from the entire run. I did not notice a comparable effect during lifting.

What happened afterward

The heart-rate response disappeared with continued use. Across the remaining ten administrations, I did not detect a sustained cardio benefit, a meaningful lifting effect, or a repeatable improvement in training capacity or recovery.

Result

The experiment produced a brief early physiological response but no durable performance signal. The original body-composition question was not isolated by this short run, and nothing emerged that justified continuing solely to extend that endpoint.

Interpretation

I do not know why the initial heart-rate response disappeared. Adaptation is possible, but I did not measure a mechanism. The practical result is that a response I could feel at the beginning did not become a benefit I could use in cardio or lifting.

Decision

I closed SLU-PP-332 as no signal on August 22 and removed it from the pre-workout stack. This result applies to this product, dose, route, and exposure period; it does not test whether a different ERR agonist or a clinically validated exposure could work.